Press release received via email:
FAIRFAX, Va. (November 13, 2007) ”“ The trial began today in which The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia are attempting to seize property from 11 Anglican churches in Virginia. The Episcopal Church and Diocese abruptly broke off settlement negotiations and filed lawsuits against the churches, their ministers and their vestries. The decision of The Episcopal Church and the Diocese to reinterpret Scripture caused the 11 churches to sever their ties. The trial is being held in the Fairfax County Circuit Court. (Multi-Circuit Property Litigation, Case No. CL-2007-0248724)
“Although we remain confident in our legal position, we call upon the leaders of both The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia to embrace the recommendation of the Primates and withdraw their lawsuits. We did not choose this path. Even today, our churches remain open to negotiating a reasonable solution with The Episcopal Church and the Diocese. The legal proceedings have been an unfortunate distraction from all the good work our churches are doing to advance the mission of Christ,” said Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia, an association of Anglican congregations in Virginia and a part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). All 11 churches named in the lawsuit are members of ADV.
“At the core of this case is that The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia claim they have a ”˜trust’ interest in the congregations’ properties. But the Virginia courts have held time and again that denominations cannot claim an ”˜implied trust’ in member congregations’ property. The Episcopal Church even admitted in its complaint that it does not hold title to any of these eleven churches and that the churches’ own trustees hold title for the benefit of the congregations.
“The Episcopal Church has continually walked away from the scriptural foundation of the Anglican Communion. When we objected, they chose intimidation through lawsuits as their solution. Regardless of the actions of The Episcopal Church, ADV members will continue to hold steadfast in their faith, based on the authority of Scripture. We continue to pray for The Episcopal Church and its leaders.”
It is not all that surprising that the Anglican District would make this request. If both CANA and the Diocese would drop their suits, CANA would win by default. The congregations that filed claiming ownership of the properties after the vote would hold title to the property.
“Even today, our churches remain open to negotiating a reasonable solution…”
#1 The call is to negotiate a settlement, which is a bit different from a defendant making a request for a plaintiff to drop the suit without qualification.
EmilyH (#1),
How many times? Seriously. CANA hasn’t filed any suit. When you apply for a marriage license, is it a lawsuit? When you record a mortgage, is it a lawsuit? When you submit an affidavit, is it a lawsuit? Not everything filed with a court is a lawsuit! There’s only one lawsuit here, although it’s repeated 11 times each by two different plaintiffs.
And if you’re sued, and you don’t respond, the court enters a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. If the Diocese and 815 dropped their lawsuits, the CANA churches would continue to hold title to the property. But if the CANA churches didn’t respond to the lawsuits filed by 815 and the Diocese, default judgment would be entered against them.
It strikes me that neither the diocese or TEC are the least bit interested in any settlement. It’s “Our way, or the highway.”
Actually most of the trustees of these Churches hold them in trust for the congregation exclusively and sometimes for the congregation and the diocese (which has now divided) but not for the National Church.
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
This is a press release from ADV? Right? So i’m sure it’s unbiased and true.
Frankly this is a bit odd, and suggests the churches are feeling very insecure in their position. Even if this were not the case, this is how DBB and his legal team will read this. So in fact this has the opposite effect of what one presumes was intended. Even as PR it is bad: why make an offer to negotiate something you believe is plainly yours (the property)? Perhaps this is a message to the judge, that they are the reasonable ones, and not 815 and Peter Lee. But that’s not what’s going to decide this case: the law is. So the whole thing seems very odd to me, and even a bit desperate.
A modest reminder to plainparson (#6) and VaAnglican (#7):
[blockquote] MT 5:25 Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny. [/blockquote]
Our Lord’s command is “a bit odd”?
The Lord’s command is assuredly not “a bit odd.” But this public statement is. Certainly they could have gone to the plaintiffs and again offered to negotiate, as they have done (as I understand it) repeatedly. There is nothing in Scripture about making such public statements, which frankly work against settlement, as I noted above.
3, this is tired old ground and I hesitate to re-hash it, but the facts are that the congregations went to Court first. On 12/18/06, a number of them filed petitions seeking to have the Court “recognize their vote.” The rest followed suit in early-mid January. The Diocese and TEC did not file suit until the end of January.
“But wait,” I can hear you saying, “what we filed in court wasn’t really a lawsuit.” If you read the congregations’ attorneys’ briefs, however, you’ll find that they think the end result of this non-lawsuit should have been a declaration that the congregations own the property. Sounds pretty similar to the Diocese’s complaint to me.
DavidH… There is a consistent PATTERN of 815 using the courts PRE-EMPTIVELY to silence dissent from the orthodox faithful all over the country. Which came first– the consecration of VGR, or the filing of petitions by churches in VA? I lived in Milwaukee WI at the time of the GC that upheld VGR; as a matter of fact, the Diocese of Milwaukee had their new bishop confirmed at that same GC. Bp. Millers FIRST act upon being made Bishop of Milwaukee? On the advice of815, and on orders from 815, and with the full cooperation of 815, Bp. Miller immediately decided to FIRE, inhibit, and depose every orthodox priest in the diocese; eliminate every orthodox vestry in the diocese; seize every orthodox parish (declaring them suddenly “missionary parishes” and appointing “vicars” who answered directly to the bishop); transfer ALL of orthodox parish funds– including endowments– into diocesan accounts; and then, finally, to swear out hundreds and hundreds (possibly thousands, as far as I know nobody has ever gotten the full count) of “orders of protection” (the sort of thing that an abused spouse might go to court to get in order to protect herself from a violent or estranged husband) against any and every lay person in the diocese who was even remotely suspected of being in any way at all “orthodox”– so that if any of these people should even dare to set foot upon Episcopal church property (say, to attend a wedding or a funeral) that could be arrested and prosecuted for felonious assault…
Are you really so delusional as to be BLIND to the merciless legal persecution of the orthodox faithful that has proceeded from 815 consistently for years and years now? Turning one’s cheek is one thing. There is nothing unBiblical about dodging bullets…
Do you have any idea what measure of legal misery has been heaped upon the faithful by 815 for years now? Do you (or anybody at 815, for that matter) really think that this story– the story of the legal persecution of the orthodox by 815– can be concealed or downplayed or covered up forever?
Even as I write this post to this blog, I am aware of many, many, many serious church historians– men and women with impeccable academic credentials– who are compiling a terrifying array of facts to document the demonic legal savagery employed by 815 in this fight for the soul of Anglicanism in North America… More to the point, I suppose, is the fact that someday the PB and her cohorts at 815 will someday have to answer to their maker for their actions… It is a dreadful thing to consider. Do YOU really want to be in league with her when that day comes???
#10, DavidH. Download this: http://www.anglicandistrictofvirginia.org/file_download/29
It’s a pleading — in fact, it’s a copy of the original complaint filed by the Diocese of Virginia against The Falls Church, the Rev. John Yates, et al. You will notice the plaintiff is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Virginia. The Defendant is, as mentioned above TFC, Rev. Yates, and a number of Virginians who are identified later in the lawsuit as members of the TFC Vestry.
In a lawsuit a plaintiff is “a person who brings an action; the party who complains or sues in a civil action.” A defendant is “a person defending or denying a suit.”
For some reason, you seem to see yourself as Shakespeare’s Petruchio and the rest of the world is Kate. If you tell us the sun is the moon, we must agree. But in fact, despite your assertions, the Diocese of Virginia is still the plaintiff, the party that filed the lawsuit. Or to borrow from Abraham Lincoln, just because you call a tail a leg, it doesn’t mean the dog has five legs.
[blockquote] When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
-Charles L. Dodgson, Through the Looking Glass. [/blockquote]
Also, before I got distracted by the need to educate Mr. H, the only reason I had intended to comment was that the heading of this should read:
As Trial Begins, Virginia Anglican Churches Again Call on The Episcopal Church to Withdraw Their Law[b]suit[/b]
[i] The program wouldn’t allow the final 4 letters. I tried. [/i]
-Elf Lady
William, no need to “educate” me. I’ve read that pleading and others. You’ll note that the date on that pleading is January 31. The date on the Falls Church’s petition is December 18. Tell me again which came first? (Who’s Humpty Dumpty now?)
What you and others entirely fail to understand is that there are 2 sets of cases — 9 filed by congregations, 11 by the Diocese, and 1 by TEC. No one’s redefining plaintiff or defendant — both sides are both in the different sets of cases. In the cases currently being tried, the Diocese is a defendant. Them’s the facts. No need for Shakespeare, just the facts.
Bluenarrative, one hopes that your post does not reflect your blood pressure. All that I was talking about was which came first in this particular litigation. Obviously 2003 came before any of it. And 1996 came before 2003. And 1979 came before 1996. And so on.
But seriously, riddle me this. If reasserters can freely choose to leave TEC (and they can, even according to 815), but they choose to place so high a value on a particular building as to fight about it in court, aren’t they choosing their own legal difficulties? Persecution by choice doesn’t seem much like real persecution to me.
The side that wants to truly be Christ-like will walk away and leave the property. Don’t wait for the other side; just do it.
RE: “The side that wants to truly be Christ-like will walk away and leave the property.”
Nonsense. Who gets to define “Christ-like” — apparently DavidH?
It is the courts who will appropriately and properly decide who owns the property. Regardless of who that is, I am excited about closure on this for both sides.
Regarding this call by the Virginia Anglican churches . . . it seems clear that the audience is an international one.
Good solid consistent move. These things all pile up, thankfully.
DavidH,
Actually, I am blessed with very good blood pressure, no matter what I seem to go through. But, at times, my emotions get the better of me. At times I get very angry and very emotional, I confess. I have been on the front lines of this battle for a LONG TIME– and I have probably been very badly wounded. Forgive me, if I cry out in pain too loudly on occasion. There are times when I experience an overwhelming sense of loss; when I mourn the Church that has been forcefully and forcibly taken away from me…
The Bible PROMISES persecution to those who follow Christ. There is NO promise that we will NOT get fed to the lions. The only consolation that we are given is this: that in the end, Jesus will triumph over the forces of darkness; and when He does, those of us who cling to HIM will triumph with him… But, in the meantime, it is not unreasonable to expect 815 to get in some good blows.
I grew up on the streets of Manhattan. I know “dirty fighting” when I see it. Anybody who thinks that 815 fights cleanly– anybody who thinks that there is anything at all “Christ-like” about the campaign of pre-emptive legal harassment initiated by 815– is a delusional fool.
My usual consolation in the midst of these trying times is the realization that I stand with Aslan. For now, that’s enough to keep me going, on a day to day basis… But, boy, let me tell you– there are time that I really hurt. Let me tell you from personal experience, being kicked in the ___ by the minions of 815 really hurts a LOT… And, if I become unduly emotional at times, it is because 815 has now purposefully and willfully heaped immeasurable misery on too many good people. There is a consistent and flagrant pattern of legal and institutional persecution of the orthodox by 815. To try to deny this, or to explain it away as the natural course of events, seems to me to be almost demonic… Maybe there are some good, well-intentioned, naive people out there who think those of us on the orthodox side of this conflict are exaggerating the savagery of the assault that we being subjected to. But there cannot be too many of these people left.
I am just astonished at how easily revisionists admonish the orthodox faithful to “Christ-like” and surrender their money and real estate to 815… the PB is paid more than $1000,000.00 per year to aggressively promote a pansexual and flagrantly gnostic agenda… Is there anything particularly “Christ-like” about THAT?
# 7 VaAnglican:
I agree. This appeal via a press release, coming at the outset of the trial, does appear to be “very odd.” It suggests they sense a weakness in their position.
The division statute is so vague I don’t see how the judge can make a definitive ruling re. ownership of the property based on its language. The churches =might= argue: “We THOUGHT we were simply complying with state law when we registered our votes to withdraw at the courthouse. This was not an attempt to grab property, because under Virginia corporate law, we already owned our property….” And go from there.
w.w.
Sarah and BlueN, I deliberately did not limit my “Christ-like” statement to one side or the other. I believe God is profoundly saddened and disappointed by both sides in this and other litigation.
Sarah, you label my statement “nonsense.” Where exactly do you find any indication in the New Testament that Jesus would have even had a lawyer, let alone called one to fight over property? It’s impossible to read the Gospels and conclude that so high a value should be placed on property as the sides place on it in this litigation.
Not to mention the fact that church property litigation is a terrible witness. No one looks good — all it does is make both sides look bad to the world that both sides should be working to improve and evangelize.
Tired old ground again. Listen carefully. The various Virginia statutes governing the issue of trust relationships, hierarchical relationships, and title to properties that are the subject of these relationships MANDATE THAT IN THE CASE OF A DIVISION THE CONGREGATIONS MUST POLL THEIR MEMBERS AND RECORD THE RESULTS OF THIS POLL WITH THE CLERK OF CIVIL DISTRICT COURT OF JURISDICTION. THIS IS NOT A LAW SUIT. IT IS FULFILLMENT OF A LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO RIGHTFULLY CLAIM WHAT IS THEIRS. This is to my knowledge the only such system in effect in the United States, and thus is confusing to be sure. Sorry revisionistas. You cannot hang the “you sued first” label on the Christians who are just following the statuatory requirements concerning notification of a division of church property. Put a sock in it.
Oh yeah and the offer for reconciliatory negotiations doesn’t show weakness, it shows strength, and IS BIBLICALLY MANDATED. Sheesh. I won’t text proof here about that. Others have already done that. Did I wake up in a Parallel Universe or something? Hasn’t this stuff already been hashed out?
… and … why should faithful Christians hand over financial resources to be used by TEC in its continuing anti-family mission and ministry?
Maryland Brian
David,
There are 22 cases filed by the Diocese of Virginia and TEC 11 by each against the congregations. Also, the Diocese is the one who reneged on not only the protocol but the standstill agreement.
RE: “Sarah, you label my statement “nonsense.â€
Right. That’s because you, DavidH, announced that you, DavidH, were going to define “Christ-like” to be those who “walk away and leave the propertyâ€.
So, DavidH, have you walked away and left your property?
Yes, I thought your statement nonsense. You do not get to define what “Christ-like” is and furthermore, when you do, it should actually be applicable to all Christians, not just the particular parties involved in a lawsuit in the Episcopal church in the state of Virginia.
I myself am thrilled that we live in a country that has fair and just courts [in general] and where the issue of property ownership will be adjudicated appropriately.
We are fortunate and blessed people. I figure that all of this will end in a decade or two, and then we can go on in separate entities, moving forward with whatever vision the groups have.
And to add to my # 17:
It also could be argued that by “complying” with the division statute to register their votes to withdraw from TEC, the defendants were, in fact, tacitly acknowledging that TEC and the diocese indeed DO have a claim to local church property.
They were not well advised to invoke the division statute’s provisions, IMO.
w.w.
19, simply untrue. Churches are not required to do anything by 57-9.
21, also simply untrue. Go check the court records and read post 14.
22, it’s interesting you assume I am an Episcopalian and that I have property to walk away from. On a broader level, there are 2 answers to your assertions. First, no one person or group has a monopoly on defining what is Christ-like. I have never claimed one. Second, we all, as Christians, should attempt to define what is Christ-like in order to model our own behavior on it. I have done that with respect to this litigation and conclude as stated above. I note that you do not take issue with my interpretation of the Gospels; nor could you, I don’t think. Hence continued attacks rather than substantive responses.
RE: “it’s interesting you assume I am an Episcopalian and that I have property to walk away from.”
Not at all.
I assume merely that you are a citizen of a country which allows property ownership. Have you walked away from your property? After all, your blanket and generalized statement above was: “The side that wants to truly be Christ-like will walk away and leave the property.” I am assuming that you have also been “Christ-like” and left your property.
RE: “Second, we all, as Christians, should attempt to define what is Christ-like in order to model our own behavior on it. I have done that with respect to this litigation and conclude as stated above.”
Right. And I have concluded “as stated above.”
Both of us get to conclude things, DavidH. Both of us disagree heartily with one another about what is “Christ-like.”
RE: “I note that you do not take issue with my interpretation of the Gospels; nor could you, I don’t think.”
I certainly do take issue with your assertions concerning the gospels. You make several wrong ones and I certainly assert differently. You say for instance “Where exactly do you find any indication in the New Testament that Jesus would have even had a lawyer, let alone called one to fight over property?” and of course that is a red herring assertion.
Where in the New Testament would Jesus “have even had a radio” for instance. One cannot make an argument from the absence of something mentioned in the New Testament. Just because Jesus did not mention that “stage coach robbing” was wrong is no argument that it is just fine. Just because Jesus did not mention some parishes in Virginia defending themselves legally in the court system of their country of birth is no argument that it is wrong of them to do so and in fact, when taking the New Testament as a whole, it seems perfectly proper for the Virginia parishes to defend themselves in the courts of their country, as Paul did in the courts of Rome.
RE: “It’s impossible to read the Gospels and conclude that so high a value should be placed on property as the sides place on it in this litigation.”
Of course it’s possible. I’ve read the gospels and I certainly am able to “conclude that so high a value should be placed on property.” God loves the material world. He has showered us with gifts from the material world. Property is a good and decent and useful and wonderful thing, and is certainly not in and of itself a bad thing. Defending one’s rights to property is not in any way intrinsically a bad thing — it is rather the responsible and faithful thing to do.
RE: “Hence continued attacks . . . ”
LOL.
If our exchanges are representative of “continued attacks” . . . you must not have been “dialoguing” much lately, DavidH. I have in no way attacked you. I have simply and forthrightly and heartily disagreed with your assertions. That would be rather like my claiming that your statement that the “Christ-like” response would be to “walk away and leave the property” is some sort of an “attack”.
Your continued assertions of what you believe have not been “attacks” and my continued assertions of what I believe — contrary to you — are no “attacks” either.
Sarah,
Very well said! I especially liked your emphasis on God’s love of things material. This is a particular “hobby-horse” of mine. It has always seemed to me perfectly obvious that when God created the physical world that we know he saw it as being a GOOD thing. The fact that we are going to raised BODILY from the dead is a fairly clear indication that materiality, per se, is something that God rather approves of. The idea that somehow there is a hierarchy of values, with the material realm at the bottom of the heap and some sort of ethereal non-material “spiritual” realm at the top of the heap, is, to my mind, rank gnosticism. It is an idea at work in the writings of Plato and other pagans; it is an idea deeply embedded in Asian religious speculation; and it now seems to be making its way to a prominent place in the doctrinal landscape of TEC. But it is an idea that is directly at odds with even the most cursory reading of the Bible. Judaism and Christianity both clearly affirm that there is no such hierarchy of values at work in the mind of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Authentic Jewish spirituality (as any rabbi can tell you) and authentic Christian spirituality (as both Jesus and Paul repeatedly remind us) should impell true believers further INTO the realm of things CONCRETE. Authentic Biblical sprituality does NOT impell us into some immaterial and/or transcendental and/or some mystical “spiritual” realm.
One of my favorite passages in Scripture is when Jesus restores to life a little girl who has died. Her parents and everybody around Him are, not surprisingly, astonished and don’t quite know what to do. Jesus tells them to get the girl something to EAT– the child has been DEAD for a few days, she must be quite hungry! Jesus understands and appreciates the body. Jesus understands and appreciates the material realm.
Our physical bodies are much, much, much more than the insideous “shells” which “imprison” our “spirit,” as both past and present gnostics would have us believe. God rather LIKES physical bodies, as a matter of fact. Jesus liked His own body so much that when He ascended to Heaven He took it with Him. To be sure, that physical body is now glorified, but it remains a material body nonetheless. Jesus, literally, fully incorporated (no pun intended) that glorified body into the Triune Godhead…
IN a similar manner, the wonderfully old and hallowed churches of northern Virginia are much, much, much than insideous “property” that somehow “imprison” the “spirit” of the Church, as the modern gnostics of TEC would lead you to believe…
Of course, just as it was in the ancient world (and just as it is now in the religious landscape of modern Asia– particularly India) this is not REALLY what they believe, at all. Or, at least, it is NOT what they PRACTICE, even if it is what they PREACH… It is a POSTURE, calculated to enhance both the prestige and material position of the hierarchy… If the revisionists REALLY believed this, of course, they would abandon THEIR property… (the National Cathedral, maybe? the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in NYC, maybe? Trinity Wall Street along with all of its endowments, maybe? Ha! Not very likely!)